11 ms·

California man fights DUI charge for driving under influence of caffeine

93 points by setra 10y ago

jimmywanger 10y ago
I read about the case. They dropped the DUI charges but are still going after him for reckless driving. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-charge-on-man-who-tested-10826042.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-cha...
- dovdovdov 10y ago
  there's always a story, behind the story...
  - ChrisBland 10y ago
    DA can't look bad, heaven forbid they admit they made a mistake and overreached. That would be unheard of, better to try them for some other smaller crime so they can continue to insist they are keeping bad people off the street and their conviction % doesn't take a hit.
- basseq 10y ago
  “Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Krishna Abrams, the district attorney. I'm bothered by the "armchair conviction" here by the DA. I get this is probably standard lawyer boilerplate, but she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. Is there a libel/slander case here? (Probably not.) Second, I'm confused whether he was charged with reckless driving at the time of arrest, or if this is a later charge. Also confused about the "charges were not brought until... nearly 10 months after incident" line in the original article. I'm assuming the story goes like this: Man was pulled over for driving erratically (e.g., weaving through traffic). He is given a field sobriety test and fails. He is charged with DUI and reckless driving. The initial blood test reveals no known (i.e., testable) substances of which he could have been under the influence. The sample is sent for a second, more intensive round of testing. It reveals no new information other than caffeine. The DUI charge is not immediately dropped, and the defendant uses the opportunity to push the "charged for DUI for caffeine" story. The DUI charge is finally dropped. The reckless driving charge continues, and will go to court this year. My opinion is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had to be under the influence of something!"), so they took their sweet time trying to find an angle.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    He wasn't pulled over by a cop, he was pulled over by an unmarked non traffic related officer of some sort. This one screams to me that his main offense was pissing off someone with authority in an unmarked car who went on to do everything possible to make his life miserable. If I had to bet I'd suspect he got into some mild road rage incident with this state employee, flipped her off or something, and this is the payback. Just a theory, read the story again and read between the lines of the initial reported incident.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      I agree... "he was pulled over by an agent from the California department of alcoholic beverage control, who was driving an unmarked vehicle. The agent said Schwab had cut her off and was driving erratically" Pulled over by an alcohol beverage control agent whom he had cut off. Oy.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      A minor nit but ABC claim to have some involvement with vehicles. ABC are hiring. http://www.abc.ca.gov/ http://www.abc.ca.gov/ here's the job spec. <---begin quote---> THE POSITION The Agent, Alcoholic Beverage Control, is a deep class with three alternate ranges. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, conducting independent investigations of criminal and/or administrative violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises by licensees, their employees, and/or members of the general public; and interpreting and explaining the provisions of the laws, rules, and regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Penal Code, Health and Safety Code, and Vehicle Code. Agents at Range A are entry level and conduct independent investigations of criminal and/or administrative violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises by licensees, their employees, and/or members of the general public; locate and interview witnesses and persons suspected of violations; collect and preserve evidence to support administrative action and/or prosecution; determine type of case and develop investigation plan; prepare clear, concise, and accurate documents and reports detailing investigation activities and findings; maintain accurate master investigation case files; develop field operation plans, and safely executing them; perform undercover assignments and surveillance operations; provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and others; make physical arrests; maintain liaison with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; and testify in criminal court and/or administrative hearings. Agents at Range B are journey level and conduct more complex and difficult investigations and demonstrate a broader knowledge and application of investigative techniques and procedures. Agents, in addition to the above, conduct undercover and high-profile criminal investigations; and write, secure, and serve arrest and search warrants. Agents at Range C are full journey level and conduct or participate in the most difficult and sensitive investigations. In addition to all of the above, investigations include, but are not limited to, vice, gambling, prostitution <---end quote--->
- vivekd 10y ago
  Could be a leverage thing, prosecutors do that a lot, they hold up a really high but impossible to prove charge to try and get you to plead guilty to a lower and difficult to prove charge. The DUI charge might have just been a strategic play to get him to plead to careless driving. Not happy to see people's lives used as strategic plays like this, but unfortunately the egos of lawyers can play a huge role in the court system.
Cephlin 10y ago
I can't believe the caffeine charge even got that far.
- jMyles 10y ago
  There was never a caffeine charge. The prosecution believed (and maintains) that he was under the influence of some other, unknown drug. This is the reason that an impairment standard, rather than a chemical standard, makes more sense for criminal liability. If someone's driving ability to impaired such that they are, say 70% more likely to cause an injurious or fatal accident, what does it matter whether it's because they were on Drug A or Drug B or talking on their phone?
  - sitkack 10y ago
    These symptomatic laws shouldn't exist. Car headlights used to be mandated by watts instead of light output. The result was HID headlights that melted the retinas of oncoming drivers. Stupid laws make people stupid.
  - trvrsalom 10y ago
    That makes sense, but is there a way to quantify that? I've always had the notion that something like a roadside sobriety test is rather subjective. I know that if I were in the situation of being suspected of a DUI (which I hope I never am), I would want a clear, quantifiable test, with a low margin of error.
    - ssharp 10y ago
      You can refuse to submit to the test, get arrested, and then do breathalyzer at the station. Police also have a portable breathalyzer you could submit to roadside. I have an eye condition that makes the gaze test, in my opinion, unreliable and the two times I've been pulled over after drinking, the police noted this prior to my doing the test. In both instances I did fine in the one-leg test and the walk-a-line test (at least I assume I did fine). To avoid inconvenience, I did decide to allow the portable breathalyzer one of those times and I think the reading came up 0.0015. I knew I wasn't seriously impaired or over the legal limit and had only had 2 or 3 beers over a 3 or 4 hour period. If you're not sure if you're over the legal limit or not, I wouldn't submit to the roadside breathalyzer (obviously though you shouldn't be driving if you're not sure or think you're impaired).
jMyles 10y ago
> He was arrested and charged with driving under the influence in Solano County, but investigators found no alcohol or drugs in his system. Fairfield resident Joseph Schwab, 36 did test positive for one substance: caffeine. Such a strange insistence in journalism to use obtuse, inconsistent, useless definitions for the word "drug", often that change within the same article. Anyway, at the end of the day, if the dude was driving recklessly, which the LEO says he was, then charge him with that. This is a great example of why it doesn't make sense to attach criminal liability to blood/brain chemistry.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  Because unless you're being a pedant, any reasonable person with a decent reading level would understand the context of "drugs and alcohol" to mean impairing drugs, not caffeine and tylenol
twilightfog 10y ago
Abrams insisted the case was "never about caffeine," and she insisted that Schwab had to have been under the influence of another drug that didn’t show up in the test. Not all drugs do under standard rounds of testing. To paraphrase: we didn't find anything to justify the charges, but we're still going to tell everyone that he is guilty.
- dx034 10y ago
  No, telling that someone is guilty can only be done by a court. Prosecutors can say that they believe he could be guilty. In this case, they dropped that and said that he's likely innocent. The unfortunate thing in the US is just that most cases don't make it to court, and a lot of people plead guilty to get a deal. This is not how the system was designed, and not how it works in most other democracies.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    This just shows significant parts of the government are rotten to the core. It's an issue most likely to affect people who are unable to afford good representation. Let's be honest: courts in most western countries are only really accessible to upper middle class and/or wealthier people. If you do not have proper representation, you will probably lose in cases like these. The fact that some random smuck is given this much power is shocking.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      The issue of plea bargaining isn't so simple as it's made out to be (by people who don't have any idea of what the justice system actually does). The overwhelming majority of people that go through the justice system are guilty. For every ambiguous charge, there are a dozen instances where someone was caught with drugs on their person,[1] clearly identified in a security tape robbing a store, etc. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. Like every system, the courts have been optimized for the common case. That certainly has costs in the uncommon case--as optimizing for the common case always does. Maybe those costs are too much to bear. But it's not a simple issue of government being "rotten to the core." [1] Whether you think having drugs should or should not be a crime is an entirely separate issue.
0xcde4c3db 10y ago
People understandably get hung up on the social/legal status of caffeine, but I think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion of a DUI charge for it. In several important ways it acts like a milder form of cocaine or amphetamine, and with high enough doses it can cause similar behavioral problems ("tweaking", paranoia, mania, even psychosis).
- jdormit 10y ago
  I feel like you'd have to drink a lot of coffee...
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    In a small segment of the population, a few cups of coffee may be enough to cause mild forms of the mentioned symptoms. But this is more of a genetic anomaly / over-sensitivity. In an "average" adult, it would require a lot of caffeine to trigger these symptoms -- dozens of cups over a very short period of time. Caffeine pills or powder would be a far more likely explanation. And yeah, driving after popping a significant number of caffeine pills is probably as dangerous as driving after ingesting a small dose of cocaine. TBF if the caffeine concentrations were such that this were a likely explanation, I bet we'd be hearing about it.
    - eutectic 10y ago
      When my tolerance is low it doesn't take much to make me twitchy and impair my thinking.
      - throwaway729 10y ago
        > twitchy and impair my thinking I'm not sure how dangerous those symptoms are in the context of driving. Someone should do a study. I was referring to these symptoms, which are unarguably dangerous in the context of driving: "tweaking", paranoia, mania, even psychosis.
  - mcguire 10y ago
throwaway729 10y ago
"...The agent said Schwab had cut her off... The charge of driving under the influence is not based upon the presence of caffeine in his system," she added." You sure as hell got that right...
- stronglikedan 10y ago
  Sounds like a case of road rage by an "agent" who abused her position.
tilt_error 10y ago
There is a high probability of finding H2O in his blood as well, if they found C8H10N4O2.
- rhinoceraptor 10y ago
  100% of criminals were caught under the influence of the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide.
dazbradbury 10y ago
I overtook an off-duty police officer, who was driving his personal truck, whilst on holiday in California a few years ago (from the UK). At the next town, I was pulled over by a police car (bull horn, hand on gun, full film-level drama). I had no idea why at the time. It was explained to me that the off-duty officer was annoyed, and called the police station in the next town. I was told that the highway I was on was "not the autobahn" (I have never travelled on an autobahn), and given a ticket for crossing a solid lane marker. I hadn't at any point crossed a double yellow line marker. Not living in the US meant fighting it was hard, so I paid for fear of not being allowed back in the country on my next visit. Lesson learned: people in positions of power, like this off-duty government agent, will happily use that power if someone pisses them off - and systems are in place to allow it. These systems need to be tested, fought, and abusers penalised. I'm just sorry I didn't fight harder in this instance.
- rhcom2 10y ago
  You could have paid it but still filed a complaint against the officer. Doubt anything would come of it but maybe still worth it?
  - dazbradbury 10y ago
    Agreed. I definitely should have explored more options and fought it. It was actually remarkably difficult to even pay the fine from the UK, let alone file a complaint - but I guess I shouldn't have let that stop me.
    - rhcom2 10y ago
      Unfortunately it is a common tactic to do that on purpose like only allowing complaints to be filed in person.
- yazbo_mcclure 10y ago
  That is normal - got a fake ticket in Florence Italy had to pay
- 10y ago
threepipeproblm 10y ago
The news here isn't that the justice system in California has corruption problems and an "us against them" mentality. It's that they're not even ashamed to let the world see that.
iaw 10y ago
I am intimately aware of the prosecutorial aggression of the Solano County DA. There was a young father who worked at the sugar factory that lived in a poor neighborhood. The owner of the house next door had rented it to ex-con meth addicts who liked harassing the mother when the father wasn't home. Calling the police in this area didn't work because they wouldn't show up. The young man had a felony on his record for doing donuts then running from the police as an 18 year old which precludes him from owning a firearm legally, but out of fear for his family he purchased one. On a particular bad day three men were stalking the house with his wife inside, he rushed back from work to find them harassing her on his lawn. One looked like he kept reaching for a gun behind his back. The young father got his firearm and told them all to leave (note the police won't come at this point). The man with a "gun" gets more aggressive and as things escalate, during another sudden movement, the father shoots him once in the side. Now that a gun has been fired the police come. The man dies on the front lawn. The officers, aware of the degree of harassment, tell the father that he was justified and that it will be okay. They all file reports to that effect. The Solano County DA prosecutes the father for the manslaughter and felon in possession of a firearm. As a leveraging tool the manslaughter charge is dropped but the felon with a firearm puts him in the penitentiary for 7 years. He had a 6 month old and a 4 year old when he went in. The Solano County DA knew they could win so they did, there was no benefit to the community. Solano is full of poor people that can be easily victimized, it's a heartbreaking environment.
- 6t6t6t6 10y ago
  - How can it be possible that someone gets a criminal record for doing something stupid (but not reckless) with a car? - How can it be possible that when someone calls the police and the police ignore them? - How can it possible that someone who has problems with the neighbors thinks that the most sensible thing to do is to buy a gun? - How can it be possible that a discussion in the lawn ends with a dead person?
- gnopgnip 10y ago
  Why didn't they call the county sheriff if the local police were not responding? Why didn't the father have his second amendment rights restored prior to purchasing a firearm?
watty 10y ago
This is borderline "fake news". The driver was arrested for suspicion of being under the influence of a drug, yet the tests did not find any drugs. The defense seems to be claiming "he was arrested for caffeine" yet it has nothing to about caffeine. The DUI charges were dropped subsequently because they had no proof of drugs. The article is sensational, trying to imply that one can get arrested for caffeine use.
- CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
  I don't think it was fake news at the time it was published. The article was published on Dec. 24, and charges were only dropped several days later. Reference: http://abc7news.com/news/solano-county-da-drops-dui-for-caffeine-charge/1677999/ http://abc7news.com/news/solano-county-da-drops-dui-for-caff...
vivekd 10y ago
>California vehicle code defines a “drug” as any substance besides alcohol that could affect a person in a manner that would “impair, to an appreciable degree” his ability to drive normally. There's your problem. When you have vaguely defined laws, you have a system that can criminalize even the most ordinary and innocent behaviors.
- mnm1 10y ago
  Totally agree. Sadly, however, it's not a bug, it's a feature of the legal system in the US. When the target is everyone and their everyday activities, such vague laws serve that purpose extremely well.
Teckla 10y ago
http://www.snopes.com/man-charged-driving-influence-caffeine/ http://www.snopes.com/man-charged-driving-influence-caffeine...
vlokshin 10y ago
In Texas, they are allowed to give you a DUI even of you pass all sobriety tests; they leave it up to the officer to determine intoxication even if there is none present. Another fun fact in Texas: you don't have to be driving to get a DUI; they can nick you for intent OR they can determine that you are in "control", which could mean sleeping in your truck bed with your keys in your pocket.

93 points by setra 10y ago

I read about the case. They dropped the DUI charges but are still going after him for reckless driving. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-charge-on-man-who-tested-10826042.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-cha...

dovdovdov 10y ago
there's always a story, behind the story...
- ChrisBland 10y ago
  DA can't look bad, heaven forbid they admit they made a mistake and overreached. That would be unheard of, better to try them for some other smaller crime so they can continue to insist they are keeping bad people off the street and their conviction % doesn't take a hit.
basseq 10y ago
“Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Krishna Abrams, the district attorney. I'm bothered by the "armchair conviction" here by the DA. I get this is probably standard lawyer boilerplate, but she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. Is there a libel/slander case here? (Probably not.) Second, I'm confused whether he was charged with reckless driving at the time of arrest, or if this is a later charge. Also confused about the "charges were not brought until... nearly 10 months after incident" line in the original article. I'm assuming the story goes like this: Man was pulled over for driving erratically (e.g., weaving through traffic). He is given a field sobriety test and fails. He is charged with DUI and reckless driving. The initial blood test reveals no known (i.e., testable) substances of which he could have been under the influence. The sample is sent for a second, more intensive round of testing. It reveals no new information other than caffeine. The DUI charge is not immediately dropped, and the defendant uses the opportunity to push the "charged for DUI for caffeine" story. The DUI charge is finally dropped. The reckless driving charge continues, and will go to court this year. My opinion is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had to be under the influence of something!"), so they took their sweet time trying to find an angle.
- CPLX 10y ago
  He wasn't pulled over by a cop, he was pulled over by an unmarked non traffic related officer of some sort. This one screams to me that his main offense was pissing off someone with authority in an unmarked car who went on to do everything possible to make his life miserable. If I had to bet I'd suspect he got into some mild road rage incident with this state employee, flipped her off or something, and this is the payback. Just a theory, read the story again and read between the lines of the initial reported incident.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I agree... "he was pulled over by an agent from the California department of alcoholic beverage control, who was driving an unmarked vehicle. The agent said Schwab had cut her off and was driving erratically" Pulled over by an alcohol beverage control agent whom he had cut off. Oy.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    A minor nit but ABC claim to have some involvement with vehicles. ABC are hiring. http://www.abc.ca.gov/ http://www.abc.ca.gov/ here's the job spec. <---begin quote---> THE POSITION The Agent, Alcoholic Beverage Control, is a deep class with three alternate ranges. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, conducting independent investigations of criminal and/or administrative violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises by licensees, their employees, and/or members of the general public; and interpreting and explaining the provisions of the laws, rules, and regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Penal Code, Health and Safety Code, and Vehicle Code. Agents at Range A are entry level and conduct independent investigations of criminal and/or administrative violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises by licensees, their employees, and/or members of the general public; locate and interview witnesses and persons suspected of violations; collect and preserve evidence to support administrative action and/or prosecution; determine type of case and develop investigation plan; prepare clear, concise, and accurate documents and reports detailing investigation activities and findings; maintain accurate master investigation case files; develop field operation plans, and safely executing them; perform undercover assignments and surveillance operations; provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and others; make physical arrests; maintain liaison with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; and testify in criminal court and/or administrative hearings. Agents at Range B are journey level and conduct more complex and difficult investigations and demonstrate a broader knowledge and application of investigative techniques and procedures. Agents, in addition to the above, conduct undercover and high-profile criminal investigations; and write, secure, and serve arrest and search warrants. Agents at Range C are full journey level and conduct or participate in the most difficult and sensitive investigations. In addition to all of the above, investigations include, but are not limited to, vice, gambling, prostitution <---end quote--->
vivekd 10y ago
Could be a leverage thing, prosecutors do that a lot, they hold up a really high but impossible to prove charge to try and get you to plead guilty to a lower and difficult to prove charge. The DUI charge might have just been a strategic play to get him to plead to careless driving. Not happy to see people's lives used as strategic plays like this, but unfortunately the egos of lawyers can play a huge role in the court system.

Cephlin 10y ago

I can't believe the caffeine charge even got that far.

jMyles 10y ago
There was never a caffeine charge. The prosecution believed (and maintains) that he was under the influence of some other, unknown drug. This is the reason that an impairment standard, rather than a chemical standard, makes more sense for criminal liability. If someone's driving ability to impaired such that they are, say 70% more likely to cause an injurious or fatal accident, what does it matter whether it's because they were on Drug A or Drug B or talking on their phone?
- sitkack 10y ago
  These symptomatic laws shouldn't exist. Car headlights used to be mandated by watts instead of light output. The result was HID headlights that melted the retinas of oncoming drivers. Stupid laws make people stupid.
- trvrsalom 10y ago
  That makes sense, but is there a way to quantify that? I've always had the notion that something like a roadside sobriety test is rather subjective. I know that if I were in the situation of being suspected of a DUI (which I hope I never am), I would want a clear, quantifiable test, with a low margin of error.
  - ssharp 10y ago
    You can refuse to submit to the test, get arrested, and then do breathalyzer at the station. Police also have a portable breathalyzer you could submit to roadside. I have an eye condition that makes the gaze test, in my opinion, unreliable and the two times I've been pulled over after drinking, the police noted this prior to my doing the test. In both instances I did fine in the one-leg test and the walk-a-line test (at least I assume I did fine). To avoid inconvenience, I did decide to allow the portable breathalyzer one of those times and I think the reading came up 0.0015. I knew I wasn't seriously impaired or over the legal limit and had only had 2 or 3 beers over a 3 or 4 hour period. If you're not sure if you're over the legal limit or not, I wouldn't submit to the roadside breathalyzer (obviously though you shouldn't be driving if you're not sure or think you're impaired).

jMyles 10y ago

> He was arrested and charged with driving under the influence in Solano County, but investigators found no alcohol or drugs in his system. Fairfield resident Joseph Schwab, 36 did test positive for one substance: caffeine. Such a strange insistence in journalism to use obtuse, inconsistent, useless definitions for the word "drug", often that change within the same article. Anyway, at the end of the day, if the dude was driving recklessly, which the LEO says he was, then charge him with that. This is a great example of why it doesn't make sense to attach criminal liability to blood/brain chemistry.

jmcdiesel 10y ago
Because unless you're being a pedant, any reasonable person with a decent reading level would understand the context of "drugs and alcohol" to mean impairing drugs, not caffeine and tylenol

twilightfog 10y ago

Abrams insisted the case was "never about caffeine," and she insisted that Schwab had to have been under the influence of another drug that didn’t show up in the test. Not all drugs do under standard rounds of testing. To paraphrase: we didn't find anything to justify the charges, but we're still going to tell everyone that he is guilty.

dx034 10y ago
No, telling that someone is guilty can only be done by a court. Prosecutors can say that they believe he could be guilty. In this case, they dropped that and said that he's likely innocent. The unfortunate thing in the US is just that most cases don't make it to court, and a lot of people plead guilty to get a deal. This is not how the system was designed, and not how it works in most other democracies.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  This just shows significant parts of the government are rotten to the core. It's an issue most likely to affect people who are unable to afford good representation. Let's be honest: courts in most western countries are only really accessible to upper middle class and/or wealthier people. If you do not have proper representation, you will probably lose in cases like these. The fact that some random smuck is given this much power is shocking.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The issue of plea bargaining isn't so simple as it's made out to be (by people who don't have any idea of what the justice system actually does). The overwhelming majority of people that go through the justice system are guilty. For every ambiguous charge, there are a dozen instances where someone was caught with drugs on their person,[1] clearly identified in a security tape robbing a store, etc. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. Like every system, the courts have been optimized for the common case. That certainly has costs in the uncommon case--as optimizing for the common case always does. Maybe those costs are too much to bear. But it's not a simple issue of government being "rotten to the core." [1] Whether you think having drugs should or should not be a crime is an entirely separate issue.

0xcde4c3db 10y ago

People understandably get hung up on the social/legal status of caffeine, but I think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion of a DUI charge for it. In several important ways it acts like a milder form of cocaine or amphetamine, and with high enough doses it can cause similar behavioral problems ("tweaking", paranoia, mania, even psychosis).

jdormit 10y ago
I feel like you'd have to drink a lot of coffee...
- throwaway729 10y ago
  In a small segment of the population, a few cups of coffee may be enough to cause mild forms of the mentioned symptoms. But this is more of a genetic anomaly / over-sensitivity. In an "average" adult, it would require a lot of caffeine to trigger these symptoms -- dozens of cups over a very short period of time. Caffeine pills or powder would be a far more likely explanation. And yeah, driving after popping a significant number of caffeine pills is probably as dangerous as driving after ingesting a small dose of cocaine. TBF if the caffeine concentrations were such that this were a likely explanation, I bet we'd be hearing about it.
  - eutectic 10y ago
    When my tolerance is low it doesn't take much to make me twitchy and impair my thinking.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      > twitchy and impair my thinking I'm not sure how dangerous those symptoms are in the context of driving. Someone should do a study. I was referring to these symptoms, which are unarguably dangerous in the context of driving: "tweaking", paranoia, mania, even psychosis.
- mcguire 10y ago

throwaway729 10y ago

"...The agent said Schwab had cut her off... The charge of driving under the influence is not based upon the presence of caffeine in his system," she added." You sure as hell got that right...

stronglikedan 10y ago
Sounds like a case of road rage by an "agent" who abused her position.

tilt_error 10y ago

There is a high probability of finding H2O in his blood as well, if they found C8H10N4O2.

rhinoceraptor 10y ago
100% of criminals were caught under the influence of the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide.

dazbradbury 10y ago

I overtook an off-duty police officer, who was driving his personal truck, whilst on holiday in California a few years ago (from the UK). At the next town, I was pulled over by a police car (bull horn, hand on gun, full film-level drama). I had no idea why at the time. It was explained to me that the off-duty officer was annoyed, and called the police station in the next town. I was told that the highway I was on was "not the autobahn" (I have never travelled on an autobahn), and given a ticket for crossing a solid lane marker. I hadn't at any point crossed a double yellow line marker. Not living in the US meant fighting it was hard, so I paid for fear of not being allowed back in the country on my next visit. Lesson learned: people in positions of power, like this off-duty government agent, will happily use that power if someone pisses them off - and systems are in place to allow it. These systems need to be tested, fought, and abusers penalised. I'm just sorry I didn't fight harder in this instance.

rhcom2 10y ago
You could have paid it but still filed a complaint against the officer. Doubt anything would come of it but maybe still worth it?
- dazbradbury 10y ago
  Agreed. I definitely should have explored more options and fought it. It was actually remarkably difficult to even pay the fine from the UK, let alone file a complaint - but I guess I shouldn't have let that stop me.
  - rhcom2 10y ago
    Unfortunately it is a common tactic to do that on purpose like only allowing complaints to be filed in person.
yazbo_mcclure 10y ago
That is normal - got a fake ticket in Florence Italy had to pay
10y ago

threepipeproblm 10y ago

The news here isn't that the justice system in California has corruption problems and an "us against them" mentality. It's that they're not even ashamed to let the world see that.

iaw 10y ago

I am intimately aware of the prosecutorial aggression of the Solano County DA. There was a young father who worked at the sugar factory that lived in a poor neighborhood. The owner of the house next door had rented it to ex-con meth addicts who liked harassing the mother when the father wasn't home. Calling the police in this area didn't work because they wouldn't show up. The young man had a felony on his record for doing donuts then running from the police as an 18 year old which precludes him from owning a firearm legally, but out of fear for his family he purchased one. On a particular bad day three men were stalking the house with his wife inside, he rushed back from work to find them harassing her on his lawn. One looked like he kept reaching for a gun behind his back. The young father got his firearm and told them all to leave (note the police won't come at this point). The man with a "gun" gets more aggressive and as things escalate, during another sudden movement, the father shoots him once in the side. Now that a gun has been fired the police come. The man dies on the front lawn. The officers, aware of the degree of harassment, tell the father that he was justified and that it will be okay. They all file reports to that effect. The Solano County DA prosecutes the father for the manslaughter and felon in possession of a firearm. As a leveraging tool the manslaughter charge is dropped but the felon with a firearm puts him in the penitentiary for 7 years. He had a 6 month old and a 4 year old when he went in. The Solano County DA knew they could win so they did, there was no benefit to the community. Solano is full of poor people that can be easily victimized, it's a heartbreaking environment.

6t6t6t6 10y ago
- How can it be possible that someone gets a criminal record for doing something stupid (but not reckless) with a car? - How can it be possible that when someone calls the police and the police ignore them? - How can it possible that someone who has problems with the neighbors thinks that the most sensible thing to do is to buy a gun? - How can it be possible that a discussion in the lawn ends with a dead person?
gnopgnip 10y ago
Why didn't they call the county sheriff if the local police were not responding? Why didn't the father have his second amendment rights restored prior to purchasing a firearm?

watty 10y ago

This is borderline "fake news". The driver was arrested for suspicion of being under the influence of a drug, yet the tests did not find any drugs. The defense seems to be claiming "he was arrested for caffeine" yet it has nothing to about caffeine. The DUI charges were dropped subsequently because they had no proof of drugs. The article is sensational, trying to imply that one can get arrested for caffeine use.

CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
I don't think it was fake news at the time it was published. The article was published on Dec. 24, and charges were only dropped several days later. Reference: http://abc7news.com/news/solano-county-da-drops-dui-for-caffeine-charge/1677999/ http://abc7news.com/news/solano-county-da-drops-dui-for-caff...

vivekd 10y ago

>California vehicle code defines a “drug” as any substance besides alcohol that could affect a person in a manner that would “impair, to an appreciable degree” his ability to drive normally. There's your problem. When you have vaguely defined laws, you have a system that can criminalize even the most ordinary and innocent behaviors.

mnm1 10y ago
Totally agree. Sadly, however, it's not a bug, it's a feature of the legal system in the US. When the target is everyone and their everyday activities, such vague laws serve that purpose extremely well.

Teckla 10y ago

http://www.snopes.com/man-charged-driving-influence-caffeine/ http://www.snopes.com/man-charged-driving-influence-caffeine...

vlokshin 10y ago

In Texas, they are allowed to give you a DUI even of you pass all sobriety tests; they leave it up to the officer to determine intoxication even if there is none present. Another fun fact in Texas: you don't have to be driving to get a DUI; they can nick you for intent OR they can determine that you are in "control", which could mean sleeping in your truck bed with your keys in your pocket.